Opinion
21-CV-2653-YGR
07-09-2021
Kristin Hart, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of Redwood City, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AS MOOT
RE: DKT. NO. 15
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Defendants move for a more definite statement from plaintiffs regarding their sixth cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants contend that they “cannot frame a responsive pleading because the nature of the claim that [p]laintiffs are pursuing is uncertain”: negligent infliction of emotional distress, as the cause of action is labeled, or intentional infliction of emotional distress, as suggested by the use of the words “reckless disregard” and “intentional” within the relevant allegations. (Dkt. No. 15 at 2 (citing Complaint ¶¶ 52-56).)
The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court Vacates the hearing set for July 13, 2021.
In light of plaintiffs' opposition brief confirming that they are pleading a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (Dkt. No. 16 at 3), the Court accepts the framing as the law of the case, and Denies as Moot the motion for a more definite statement. The Court declines to order that plaintiffs further clarify their allegations of the sixth cause of action.
This terminates Docket No. 15.
It Is So Ordered.